"Opera Software filed a complaint with the European Commission yesterday which is aimed at giving consumers a genuine choice of Web browsers. The complaint describes how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards. Opera has requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to give consumers a real choice and to support open Web standards in Internet Explorer."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Microsoft is a monopoly convicted of abusing their monopoly position. That is a fact.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
I didn't say anything about going out of business and neither did Opera. Opera is saying Microsoft is a monopoly and they are abusing that monopoly position.
I said nothing about Open Source. Nothing. Open, in the way I used it means that the spec, be it HTML, CSS, CSS2, ECMA Script or whatever, is open. You don't have to pay to get the spec. You don't have to license the spec. Anyone can implement it. It is open.
If you're sick of companies litigating to solve their issues, that's cool. I agree that it would be nicer for true competition to solve these problems. BUT, when one of the competitors is a convicted monopolist (and their monopoly position is unchanged), there is no fair competition. In such cases, I can understand litigation as an option.
Edited 2007-12-13 19:46
Member since:2006-09-16
Almafeta: Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly by courts in the US and Europe. That's a fact.
Monopoly has specific legal meaning, as well as a specific meaning in economics. As we are discussing a lawsuit, the legal definition of monopoly is clearly the proper one to use. It is a fact, not opinion, that courts have found Microsoft to hold a monopoly in desktop operating systems.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA" as much as you want, but your personal fantasy definition of monopoly simply doesn't apply to this story. Monopoly is a term of art used in the law and economics, and those are the definitions that apply.
Member since:2006-06-03
Member since:2006-12-07
OPEN does not mean FREE, both in monetary and GNU sense. Open source people often don't see the difference.
Opera can't outdo IE with being compliant to the standards. Standard compliance is something that web developers deal with, not the end users. Standard compliance is a something that increases the costs of the particular product. It is similar to environment protection regulations compliance. Unfortunately, one does not get fined for violating the standards, unlike the environment protection.
Member since:
2007-02-22
That is an opinion, not based in fact; just ask Apple, IBM, or any of the dozens of Linux repackagers that are not going out of business.
(As an aside, I am really annoyed by this modern trend to add the word 'open' in front of all instances of the word 'protocol' or 'standard'. This implies that they are all intimately related to open-source software and inimical to closed-source software, and I'm sure the people who started doing that were aware of this.)